PISHORI LAL Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions No. 2172 to 22-77 of 1980. All these revisions arise out of the orders of the Appellate Authority whereby the orders of the Rent Controller passed in various petitions filed by the petitioner were set aside and the ejectment petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it is worth noticing a few facts.

(3.) THE demised premises consist of six shops. All these shops are constructed on a land belonging to one Thakudwara. Vacant site underneath the land was taken on rent by the petitioner from the said Thakurdwara. After taking the site on rent he constructed shops and let out each of the shop to the respondents. He sought ejectment of the respondents on the ground of non-payment of rent. Respondents, in their written statement, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. They took up the plea that the shops were constructed by them. Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence on record, found the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Since the respondents had not tendered or paid the arrears of rent of the first date of the hearing, orders of ejectment were passed against them. They preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority who set aside the orders of the Rent Controller. Appellate Authority held that the land underneath the shops had been taken on rent by the petitioner from Thakurdwara and thus belonged to it. Petitioners before letting out the shops, had not taken consent is writing from Thakurdwara and, therefore, the respondents cannot be held to be tenants within the meaning of Section 2 (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred as to as the Act) and thus the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to try the petitions. Otherwise also the Appellate Authority was of the view that the evidence on record was not sufficient to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties The orders of the Appellate Authority are being challenged in these civil revisions,